The question · editorial wording
Will the review authenticate the complete BH67/BH68 exchange attributed to Amelia Skea against National Grid’s originals, including headers and attachments, and explain any difference from the self-forwarded copy? Identify the instrument, parties, land and apparatus supporting “your wayleave” for each pole, and reconcile that position with Miss E’s signed June 2024 BH68 agreement. What record supported the April 2025 plan’s “on your title” wording, given Mr Shackson’s later general-area explanation? What did Shackson’s promised March 2025 records check establish about Miss E’s agreement before he used that title wording? Was the description maintained, corrected or withdrawn, and were people relying on it notified? Examine the two representations together: did the attributed exchange and title wording support the same claimed BH68 entitlement, and which identifiable records substantiate that connection? Who knew about Miss E’s agreement and plan 83920/SI, who checked the competing position, and who authorised the representations? If either was inaccurate, identify the recipients, reliance and correction.
Why this matters Traceable evidence
The agreement, email and plan must be connected by records that can be checked. An executive assurance cannot replace authentication of the very material in dispute.
Current question directed to: Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
- Proposed recipients
- Zoë Yujnovich
- Date sent by this publication
- Not sent
- Sending of a new request by this publication
- Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.
Prepared on 18 September 2026. This executive question has not been sent by The Unanswered Record; no receipt or response deadline is recorded. Earlier requests to staff and solicitors are identified separately. Zoë Yujnovich is approached for present executive oversight, not described as having authorised the earlier handling. Expanded 25 September 2026 after the sent-attachment and September-response review; still not sent by this publication.
What the record answers
The supplied record contains Miss E’s agreement, the attributed exchange and Nick Shackson’s explanations. He states that existing wayleaves transferred and later describes a general-area map. The family challenges the documentary basis and says the requested authentication and agreement comparison remain outstanding. No executive determination has been requested through this new question.
Nick Shackson — Estates Specialist, National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc; Barnstaple, North Devon, in the 2024 correspondence · National Grid letter, October 2024 ↗
The point still requiring clarification
Provide a source-backed comparison: authentic company message, underlying instrument, relevant pole and land, and the purpose and limits of the plan. Identify any correction rather than relying on the disputed wording to verify itself.
Executive-review question updated 25 September 2026 · not yet sent.
Where this question comes from
Nick Shackson, National Grid and the BH68 plan → Read the originating article
Supporting source notes: A, pp. 4–6 · B, pp. 2–8 · C, p. 2 · F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 1–5 · S, record-integrity standards.
Other parties mentioned
Keep the record complete
Answer this question.
Any party with a response, correction or relevant document can contact theunansweredrecord@gmail.com. Quote BH68-14 and identify the point and evidence you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the question.
Respond to BH68-14 ↗